SLS vs CLS for nyc biglaw Forum

[Na_Swatch]

hmm in OP's case with a 3.8, 174 i don't think he'll be getting much $$ from CLS at all.

So on the fairly small chance he gets into SLS (if your UG is T10 the chances are probably better) he should still go to SLS over CLS. I think your cycle will probably be in at Columbia and out at SLS tho.

[thecilent]

hmm in OP's case with a 3.8, 174 i don't think he'll be getting much $$ from CLS at all.

So on the fairly small chance he gets into SLS (if your UG is T10 the chances are probably better) he should still go to SLS over CLS. I think your cycle will probably be in at Columbia and out at SLS tho.

Yeah, agree.

[como]

I don't know, I think CLS has certain advantages that might edge-out SLS. Many partners of top firms in NYC are CLS grads, and it can never hurt to have something to talk about with partners/associates (i.e., "Oh, they still have that guy teaching contracts? What a mess his test was."). SLS is more competitive, and firms might go a bit deeper in SLS, but I think CLS might get some more subconscious respect from many within the NYC legal community.

[sophia.olive]

cls's campus is way cooler

[miamiman]

you go to SLS. anyone saying otherwise is insane.

[Dtackpat75]

Ummm, yea if you want NY Big Law you cannot go wrong at either school end of story. If you want to go live in a large suburban campus at a school with beautiful weather and some of that big school feel i.e. DI athletics and so forth go to Stanford. If you want to live in a city go to Columbia. Pretty simple. If you are dead set on academia and the sort Stanford is TCR. Although at 174 and 3.8 I am thinking it more likely that you are out at Stanford and potentially in at Harvard.

[ajmanyjah]

ITT people who have never lived in CA bitch about it.

Seriously. Ask someone who has lived for more than a few months in CA. See what their response is.

Asked my brother. He complained San Fran was boring, bars closed to early, restaurant closed to early, and people walked too slow

He lived there for 6 Months

[como]

ITT people who have never lived in CA bitch about it.

Seriously. Ask someone who has lived for more than a few months in CA. See what their response is.

Asked my brother. He complained San Fran was boring, bars closed to early, restaurant closed to early, and people walked too slow

He lived there for 6 Months

It's true. I think people make way too big a deal about SF. The views are nice and the fact that napa is only a short drive is great. Other than that, the city is meh.

I prefer socal, but I can see how some people would like the bay more. The people in norcal are really nice and less burnt-out than in socal.

[samham22]

Step 1.) Go to SLS
Step 2.) Stop wanting to work in NYC when you realize how awesome CA is
Step 3.) Enjoy excellent job in SF

Yea, except outside of SF, Cali is a cultural hellhole. Though if you just want to bang airheads and eat sushi, I could see it being good.

EDIT-Well actually, all of the Bay Area is pretty sweet, though the lameness of the bars actually closing at 2 (and throwing you out at 1.45) kinda kills the point of making shitloads of disposable income

What's wrong with banging airheads n eating sushi? I love both...two of the top reasons I moved to CA

[Flanker1067]

Step 1.) Go to SLS
Step 2.) Stop wanting to work in NYC when you realize how awesome CA is
Step 3.) Enjoy excellent job in SF

Yea, except outside of SF, Cali is a cultural hellhole. Though if you just want to bang airheads and eat sushi, I could see it being good.

EDIT-Well actually, all of the Bay Area is pretty sweet, though the lameness of the bars actually closing at 2 (and throwing you out at 1.45) kinda kills the point of making shitloads of disposable income

What's wrong with banging airheads n eating sushi? I love both...two of the top reasons I moved to CA

+1. You beat me to it. I was just coming to ask how those things could possibly be bad.

Add: I am not even from Cali and have never been there for more then a week at a time, but now I am sold.

[bk1]

It's true. I think people make way too big a deal about SF. The views are nice and the fact that napa is only a short drive is great. Other than that, the city is meh.

I prefer socal, but I can see how some people would like the bay more. The people in norcal are really nice and less burnt-out than in socal.

Have you experience our weather?

[como]

It's true. I think people make way too big a deal about SF. The views are nice and the fact that napa is only a short drive is great. Other than that, the city is meh.

I prefer socal, but I can see how some people would like the bay more. The people in norcal are really nice and less burnt-out than in socal.

Have you experience our weather?

I don't know who where you're from, so I couldn't say specifically. If you're referring to either the bay area or the SD area, then yes. SF is cold as a MoFo (pun intended).

[bk1]

I don't know who where you're from, so I couldn't say specifically. If you're referring to either the bay area or the SD area, then yes. SF is cold as a MoFo (pun intended).

Meant SF specifically. I guess I cannot understand why anybody would want to live in NYC or DC (90-100+ temperatures), or NYC or Chicago (snow + pollution = nasty), when there is a nicer option that avoids both of those things.

[HLS2000]

My gut instinct is that Stanford is very slightly more prestigious than Columbia in some abstract sense. That definitely seems to be the case for clerkships. But oddly enough, a good friend faced this very choice (Stanford v. Columbia) a year ago when she was admitted to both. She was only interested in top New York law firms. I raised this issue with 3 partners at v10 New York based firms that I know personally (2 of the 3 partners just happen to be on the recruiting committees for those firms at the time).

The consensus was that there is a slight (albeit very slight) preference for Columbia at these firms. Does that preference really translate into more jobs for Columbia students over Stanford students? I am not certain since fewer Stanford students interview for New York. But all 3 partners recommended Columbia over Stanford if the only concern was getting a job at an elite firm in New York.

Yes, this was only the opinion of 3 partners, but since they are all at top firms and two had been actively involved with recruiting, this information seems as useful as any idle speculation on here that most people may contribute to this discussion.

I should add that none of these partners went to Stanford or Columbia, so they weren't biased in that way. All the partners said that there was some preference for Harvard and Yale over both Stanford and Columbia in New York. All of them also said that Stanford is looked upon very favorably in New York too and thus other factors are much more likely to be determinative when it comes to getting a job here.

So in a nutshell, Columbia may actually be the ever so slightly better choice for getting a job with a top firm in New York, but Stanford opens other doors slightly better and is still a great choice for the New York market.

[como]

I don't know who where you're from, so I couldn't say specifically. If you're referring to either the bay area or the SD area, then yes. SF is cold as a MoFo (pun intended).

Meant SF specifically. I guess I cannot understand why anybody would want to live in NYC or DC (90-100+ temperatures), or NYC or Chicago (snow + pollution = nasty), when there is a nicer option that avoids both of those things.

Como's short-list of reasons to prefer NYC over SF:
1) MTA
- Like I said earlier, Cali just cannot seem to get with public transportation
2) Food
- Although SF can hang with the big boys in the restaurant biz, NYC just has an extraordinary range (price/quality/creativity/ethnicity)
3) Fashion
- If this is important to you, there is probably no better city in the world
4) Diversity
- Let's face it, NYC is the real melting-pot of the US
5) Night-life
- Although this can be pricy, there is really something for everyone
6) Economic indicators
- Sure, NY has a 15-18% budget deficit; however, Cali is in worse trouble. Even Silicon Valley has felt the crunch. NYC will never stop being the financial heart of the US, even if it begins to allow some international markets to take some of the limelight.
7) Women
- I really should have put this hiiiigh up on the list. NYC has talent. I don't know what Katy Perry is talking about, but I think she's a bit biased or she hasn't spent time in NY. At the same time, my gf is living in SF so I should watch what I say. Obviously she kills them all.

[ajmanyjah]

Step 1.) Go to SLS
Step 2.) Stop wanting to work in NYC when you realize how awesome CA is
Step 3.) Enjoy excellent job in SF

Yea, except outside of SF, Cali is a cultural hellhole. Though if you just want to bang airheads and eat sushi, I could see it being good.

EDIT-Well actually, all of the Bay Area is pretty sweet, though the lameness of the bars actually closing at 2 (and throwing you out at 1.45) kinda kills the point of making shitloads of disposable income

What's wrong with banging airheads n eating sushi? I love both...two of the top reasons I moved to CA

Herpes and mercury poisoning? Actually, scratch that, I'd rather have Herpes than have pillow talk that centers around The Bachelor and Tiffany's.

[Unemployed]

Ummm, yea if you want NY Big Law you cannot go wrong at either school end of story. If you want to go live in a large suburban campus at a school with beautiful weather and some of that big school feel i.e. DI athletics and so forth go to Stanford. If you want to live in a city go to Columbia. Pretty simple. If you are dead set on academia and the sort Stanford is TCR. Although at 174 and 3.8 I am thinking it more likely that you are out at Stanford and potentially in at Harvard.

Actually, I am surrounded by people whose NY Big Law dreams went horribly wrong.

OP - what's wrong with you? Go to SLS.

[thecilent]

OP - what's wrong with you? Go to SLS.

Didn't make this thread to ask which I should go to. I have not gotten into either, and I think I have only a slim, slimmm chance of getting SLS.

Was just curious to see if people thought CLS would be better to feed into NY

[Unemployed]

OP - what's wrong with you? Go to SLS.

Didn't make this thread to ask which I should go to. I have not gotten into either, and I think I have only a slim, slimmm chance of getting SLS.

Was just curious to see if people thought CLS would be better to feed into NY

Sorry it was more of an expression than an accusation. ITE has shown us that for getting biglaw, YS>>>>H>>>>>>>>CCN... even for NYC biglaw.

[thecilent]

OP - what's wrong with you? Go to SLS.

Didn't make this thread to ask which I should go to. I have not gotten into either, and I think I have only a slim, slimmm chance of getting SLS.

Was just curious to see if people thought CLS would be better to feed into NY

Sorry it was more of an expression than an accusation. ITE has shown us that for getting biglaw, YS>>>>H>>>>>>>>CCN... even for NYC biglaw.

Really? This is kinda what I thought, but some itt have said that for nyc S and C would be pretty similar (if not C actually getting an edge).

[Kretzy]

OP - what's wrong with you? Go to SLS.

Didn't make this thread to ask which I should go to. I have not gotten into either, and I think I have only a slim, slimmm chance of getting SLS.

Was just curious to see if people thought CLS would be better to feed into NY

Sorry it was more of an expression than an accusation. ITE has shown us that for getting biglaw, YS>>>>H>>>>>>>>CCN... even for NYC biglaw.

Really? This is kinda what I thought, but some itt have said that for nyc S and C would be pretty similar (if not C actually getting an edge).

Lots of folks at Columbia get very prestigious NYC Biglaw. Part of this could be the the tippy-top of Columbia is almost always applying for Wachtell, Cravath, etc., whereas the top of SLS is a little more geographically spread. These firms aren't lowering their hiring criteria just for a median kid from Stanford, but there are fewer seeking the job, so fewer represented at these firms.

With SLS having half the class size of Columbia, and with fewer than 1/4 of the class (45 or so people) wanting NYC as a primary market, it seems like almost no one from SLS strikes out in NYC. A good chunk of Columbia kids, at least in the bottom quarter, do seem to strike out from biglaw jobs in the city, even though Columbia is much "safer" than most other schools.

Soon-to-be Stanford 1L though, so I admit my own biases.

[Unemployed]

OP - what's wrong with you? Go to SLS.

Didn't make this thread to ask which I should go to. I have not gotten into either, and I think I have only a slim, slimmm chance of getting SLS.

Was just curious to see if people thought CLS would be better to feed into NY

Sorry it was more of an expression than an accusation. ITE has shown us that for getting biglaw, YS>>>>H>>>>>>>>CCN... even for NYC biglaw.

Really? This is kinda what I thought, but some itt have said that for nyc S and C would be pretty similar (if not C actually getting an edge).

That's just C students' being delusional

SLS dominates because of:

1. Class Size
SLS: ~180 including transfers
CLS: ~470 including transfers

2. Non-corporate Focus
SLS: 8.7% public interest/government/academia placement, 25.5% clerkships (many of whom do not go to the private sector)
CLS: 6% public interest/government/academia placement, 8% clerkships

3. Nature of the NYC market
Much of Columbia's homefield advantage is wiped out because NYC is one of the easiest markets, the Stanford name commands just as much (if not more) respect, and relatively few Stanfordians(?) seek NYC jobs.

The fact of the matter is, dozens (maybe nearing 100?) of CLS class of 2011 wanted biglaw and didn't get it. The same can't be said about Stanford. It just goes to show that the LSAT isn't everything